cannabisnews.com: Science vs The Pot Smoking Pitch
Science vs The Pot Smoking Pitch
Posted by FoM on May 04, 2000 at 10:44:33 PT
By James McDonough
Source: Washington Times
While it has long been clear that chemical compounds found in the marijuana plant offer potential for medical use, smoking the raw plant is a method of delivery supported neither by law nor recent scientific evidence. Nonetheless, a number of recent ballot initiatives have advocated marijuana as a treatment for various ailments.
The net effect of these initiatives has been to favor political activism over objective science in advancing what would be the only smoked drug in America. Advocates for smoking marijuana make a well-financed, emotional appeal to the voting public, claiming that what they demand is humane, useful and safe. While relying on anecdote to document their claims, they seize upon partial statements to validate their assertions. But in so doing they avoid the main conclusion of medical science: That there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved drug. A report by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that cannabinoid drugs have potential for therapeutic use. It specifically named pain, nausea, vomiting, and lack of appetite as symptoms that might be alleviated. According to the report, cannabinoids are "moderately well suited" to combat AIDS wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and "probably have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory."Another report, by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recognized the potential benefit of marijuana to help with appetite stimulation and AIDS wasting.These studies present a consistent theme: Cannabinoids in marijuana do show potential for symptom management of several conditions. But the finding most important to the debate is that the studies did not advocate smoked marijuana as medicine. To the contrary, the NIH report called for a non-smoked alternative as a focus of further research. The IOM report recommended smoking marijuana as medicine only in the most extreme cases. The conclusions of the NIH and IOM reports are supported by commentary published in the nation's medical journals. Much of this literature focuses on the problematic aspect of smoke as a delivery system when using cannabinoids for medical purposes.There is strong evidence that smoking marijuana has detrimental health effects to the degree that it is unlikely ever to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medicine. Unrefined marijuana contains approximately 400 chemicals that become combustible when smoked, producing in turn more than 2,000 impure chemicals. The IOM report states that, when used chronically, "marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes."A subsequent study by Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhary of the Jonsson Cancer Center at the University of California-Los Angeles determined that carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco. Chronic bronchitis and increased incidence of pulmonary disease are associated with frequent use of smoked marijuana, as are reduced sperm mobility and testosterone levels in males. Decreased immune system response, which is likely to increase vulnerability to infection and tumors, is also associated with frequent use. Even a slight decrease in immune response can have a major public health ramifications. Irrespective of such risks and the fact that the demonstrated beneficial components in marijuana are already available in the approved prescription drug Dronabinol, ballot initiatives have proceeded -- with tumultuous consequences. All such initiatives create a conflict between state and federal drug laws. California's problematic experience is instructive: The "buyers' clubs" for marijuana became notorious for facetious interpretations of the definitions of "prescription," "doctor's recommendation," and "medical." One "patient" obtained a prescription for marijuana to treat hot flashes. Another, arrested for possession, claimed he was medically entitled to his stash to treat a condition exacerbated by an ingrown toenail. Undercover police in several buyers clubs reported flagrant sales to minors. Eventually, 10 of the 13 clubs in California were closed.James McDonough is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control.E-Mail: letters washtimes.com Published: May 4, 2000Copyright: 2000 News World Communications, Inc. News Article Courtesy Of MapInc.http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n594/a09.htmlCannabisNews MapInc. Archives:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/MAP.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Articles & Archives:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtmlhttp://alltheweb.com/cgi-bin/search?type=all&query=cannabisnews+medical
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #12 posted by FoM on May 05, 2000 at 22:00:39 PT
My Thanks & Two Cents
Thanks everyone for great comments. We are so lucky to have observer and kaptinemo and John R.Bills and dddd and DankHank and so many more. I think that because many of these pages are sent to important people that we are making a difference. I see it and recognize the strength that we are all gaining. The pent up anger so many of us have carried for so many years appears to be pushing us to a boiling point. We are living in a time when we are seeing serious changes and swings in our government. It's almost swinging out of control because it must so we can get rebalanced once again. It's time to turn back to the way it was back in the 60s and make changes and re-evaluate what is important to all of us as individuals. That's my two cents and thanks again everyone!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Brian1 on May 05, 2000 at 21:13:03 PT:
Amazing what constitutes Science (2)
Please forgive my re-post. The previous version of this comment was incomplete."But the finding most important to the debate is that the studies did not advocate smoked marijuana as medicine."What this person finds most important has nothing to do with science. It is amazing how they actually believe they are making the world a better place by punishing sick people for taking a home remedy that is less harmful than all the prescription drugs, which our society consumes to the tune of billions of dollars."But in so doing they avoid the main conclusion of medical science: That there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved drug. "Although the IOM Report found that there really is something to all this annecdotal evidence by scientific standards, they conclude the report with an opinion based on some scientist's forecast for the future. This is not a conclusion based on a scientific hypothesis, rather it is merely an opinion. How this can be interpreted as "the main conclusion of medical science" is absurd. It sounds like the "Pot Smoking Pitch" that the government has been telling for many decades has sunk in to this guy's head to the point that he no longer remembers his elementary science class lectures on what true science is.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Brian1 on May 05, 2000 at 21:08:21 PT:
Amazing what constitutes Science
>What this person finds most important has nothing to do with science. It is amazing how they actually believe they are making the world a better place by punishing sick people for taking a home remedy that is less harmful than all the prescription drugs, which our society consumes to the tune of billions of dollars.>>Although the IOM Report found that there really is something to all this annecdotal evidence by scientific standards, they conclude the report with an > based on some scientists forecast for the future. This is not a conclusion based on a scientific hypothesis, rather it is merely an opinion. How this can be interpreted as "the main conclusion of medical science" is absurd. It sounds like the "Pot Smoking Pitch" that the government has been telling for many decades has sunk in to this guy's head to the point that he no longer remembers his elementary science class lectures on what true science is.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by M3B on May 05, 2000 at 15:44:52 PT
Observer
Well done yet again! So when are you going to step forward and lead us to this freedom? It is a waste of your talent for you to stay behind the scenes.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by freedom fighter on May 05, 2000 at 01:44:02 PT
observer
I kin never write what you have wrote.you are my hero!long live the freedomIm only a deaf man who want to be free again!take care my friend and be safe.we need you observer! I have read everything you rote!I know what you are saying.Worse yet, I as a deaf man understand what you meant!Would a Blind man understand what you are saying, I only can pray!\|/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 04, 2000 at 22:44:42 PT
Thank You observer!
Once again observer Great Work!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by dddd on May 04, 2000 at 22:33:32 PT
Nicely Done
Thank You Observer.Your work is so excellent,all I can do is offer my sincere compliments.dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Peace on May 04, 2000 at 21:00:56 PT:
vaporize it
Pretty pathetic article. -gets my heart racing. -total and complete balogne. I get sooo upset just knowing that this is the kind of crap the majority of the population will read and say, "Huh, is that a fact?" Rent a freaking brain of your own people. There ARE alternatives to smoke!!! (which STILL has not directly resulted in the death of a single soley pot smoker. But people seem to just forget that little detail.)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by observer on May 04, 2000 at 15:18:34 PT
The Pro-Prison Pitch
Science vs The Pot Smoking PitchNotice the slant and bias we're treated to starting from the headline even of this piece: a false dilemma. "Science", we are assured, is firmly opposed ("vs") to "Pot Smoking". Choose either marijuana, or "science", we are told. This is what is known as the fallacy of a "false dilemma". (see: http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html ). Not a good start.While it has long been clear that chemical compounds found in the marijuana plant offer potential for medical use, smoking theraw plant is a method of delivery Notice the immediate resort to a straw man: "smoked" marijuana. Although marijuana is often smoked, it can be eaten or vaporized. No mention is made of that. McDonough is forced to direct his argument againsed "smoked" marijuana when people could be growing it an taking it orally (for far less than Marinol at $30 a pill, by the way). (more on straw man arguments here: http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )supported neither by law That's the whole point of the ballot initiatives: to change the law. (That's something that, in ostensibly democratic societies, that the people are free to do: change the law when they see fit. When drug warriors scream for ever harsher penalties for dope smokers, men like McDonough are mum of course. Only changes that allow the return of traditional freedoms back to adult Americans, freedoms they once had, only changes to the law like that bother McDonough.nor recent scientific evidence.Oh let me guess, the "latest" research shows that marijuana is "far worse" than thought before?Nonetheless, a number of recent ballot initiatives have advocated marijuana as a treatment for various ailments.Those horribly duped and ignorant people, ignoring those with a vested interest in the drug war, and voting to restore a tiny sliver of freedoms all Americans once shared! The very thought!The net effect of these initiatives has been to favor political activism over objective science in advancing what would be the only smoked drug in America. There he goes again: resorting to the "smoked" straw-man. Yes, with drug prohibition keeping prices black-market expensive, marijuana is more efficiently consumed smoked (or vaporized) than eaten. (But even at black-market prices, it costs less to buy from black-market and eat the equivalent dose than to buy Marinol pills. Verily, verily I say unto thee: follow the money.)Advocates for smoking marijuana make a well-financed, re: well-financedCompared to the de facto pro-prison propaganda pumped out by the ONDCP (to the tune of a billion-dollars, plus the 50-50 pay-free deal the government mandates to participating publications? see: ONDCP Media Campaign articles:http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=ONDCP+Media+Campaign&COL=Body&T=All+words&MAX=100&Y=All&DE=LowWrong, McDonough: well-financed describes the government/vested interests, not the people trying to restore freedom to adult Americans: the so-called "legalizers" drug warriors love to hate.emotional appeal to the voting public, I.e. McDonough is saying that you voters are irrational, "emotional" and need to be told what to do. (I'm sure glad men like McDonough are upholding democracy and the Americans way, aren't you?)claiming that what they demand is humane, useful More attempts to buffalo people: McDonough carefully avoids mentionin the central issue, namely, PRISON. He tries to throw a "health" red-herring at you, hoping you'll be mislead. "Marijuana may not be totally, 100% harmless in all circumstances!", such men shout! This is then supposed to be a reason why adults are to be locked up for using marijuana. (Oh, but the McDonoughs like to downplay the jail part, if they have to mention it at all.)But yes, not thowing smokers in jail is more humane, McDonough, than throwing them in jail.and safe. While relying on anecdote to document their claims, Anecdotes ... you mean like the reefer madness stories that are used as excuse to lock up adults? Anecdotes like that?they seize upon partial statements to validate their assertions. So McDonough asserts.But in so doing they avoid the main conclusion of medical science: That there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved drug. There he goes again, with his "smoked" straw-man. People eat cannabis also, but he can't talk about this salient fact for it would undermine his premise. Blacket-market cannabis can be eaten for less cost per dose than Marinol. Legally grown cannabis could be grown for pennies a (non-smoked but eaten, oral) dose. Follow the money. This is why big drug companies like to contribute to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Follow the money. ("It stillaccepts money from pharmaceutical companies, who prefer the illegals out of their way." http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n015/a06.html )see: PDFA pharmaceutical articles:http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=PDFA+pharmaceutical&COL=Body&T=All+words&MAX=50&Y=All&DE=LowA report by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that cannabinoid drugs have potential for therapeutic use. It specifically named pain, nausea, vomiting, and lack of appetite as symptoms that might be alleviated. According to the report, cannabinoids are "moderately well suited" to combat AIDS wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and "probably have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory."IOM Reporthttp://www.drugsense.org/iom_report/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARIJUANA AND MEDICINE ASSESSING THE SCIENCE BASEhttp://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/executive_summary_of_the_iom_rep.htmOFFICIAL U.S. REPORT BACKS MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA, Reuters, Mar 17, 1999http://www.levellers.org/iompr.htmIOM Report (pdf)http://216.9.192.68/pdf/iom.pdf
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by observer on May 04, 2000 at 15:17:55 PT
The Pro-Prison Pitch, continued
Another report, by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recognized the potential benefit of marijuana to help with appetite stimulation and AIDS wasting.These studies present a consistent theme: Cannabinoids in marijuana do show potential for symptom management of several conditions. But the finding mostimportant to the debate is that the studies did not advocate smoked marijuana as medicine. To the contrary, the NIH report called for a non-smoked alternative as a focus of further research. The IOM report recommended smoking marijuana as medicine only in the most extreme cases.Notice a pattern here, folks? The prohibitionists are forced to argue against the straw-man of "smoked" marijuana. The prohibitionist "argument": Because "smoked" marijuana may be like smoking anything else, it is therefore right and proper that adults are thrown in jail for using marijuana (even if they do not smoke it but eat it). The smoking straw-man: just another flimsy fallacy, another fallacy which will fly because, any old excuse will do when it comes to wanting to have a reason to throw people in jail. Any excuse will do. Anything.The conclusions of the NIH and IOM reports are supported by commentary published in the nation's medical journals. Much of this literature focuses on theproblematic aspect of smoke as a delivery system when using cannabinoids for medical purposes.(The "smoking" straw man fallacy again.) Because some people smoke rather than eat (expensive black-market cannabis), this is a reason to lock adults in jail for using cannabis, whether or not they "smoke" it? Rather absurd when stated that way, isn't it?There is strong evidence that smoking marijuana has detrimental health effects (The "smoking" straw man fallacy again. Even if smoking cannabis were a 100 times worse than tobacco, it would not be reason to kill, steal from, and incarcerate adults who still use it.) to the degree that it is unlikely ever to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medicine. Unrefined marijuana contains approximately 400 chemicals (I.e. It has approximately 400 chemicals... just like a tomato or cucumber.)that become combustible when smoked, producing in turn more than 2,000 impure chemicals. The IOM report states that, when used chronically, "marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes."(The "smoking" straw man fallacy again. Need I say more? I think it is obvious to most readers at this point how interested this drug warrior reall is in addressing the fact that cannabis can be eaten and need not be smoked, and can be vaporized without any combustion.) A subsequent study by Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhary of the Jonsson Cancer Center at the University of California-Los Angeles determined that carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco. analyist Richard Cohen noted of this flawed study:"First, there is no way that the conclusion that "The carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco" can be drawn from an epidemiological review. There is simply no data on that in this sort of study. It may help him get another NIDA grant, however. NIDA funds 85% of the "research" on marijuana. The study did not give them their money’s worth, but the media interviews are the payoff. This is a common practice. Second, this directly contradicts the abstract below, which says that "the carcinogenic properties of marijuana smoke are similar to those of tobacco." That is true except for the fact that tobacco contains nicotine which is highly toxic and may indirectly contribute to cancer because it is a vasoconstrictor and consequently reduces blood flow to tissues. There is no evidence that cannabinoids cause cancer. Consequently, the most that can be said about this study is that long-term heavy smoking of illegal marijuana – which may have been contaminated by government herbicides, or anything else that might be found in contraband, may -- or may not -- cause cancer. I would not be surprised if there is some cancer risk in very long-term heavy smoking of marijuana, especially contraband of unknown origin. Such a conclusion would not support marijuana prohibition, on the contrary, nor would it limit the medical use of marijuana. This risk is an argument for the use of vaporizers, but their existence cannot be acknowledged. It is not an argument for arresting marijuana users, but that cannot be acknowledged either."http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/marijuana_can_cause_cancer.htm Chronic bronchitis and increased incidence of pulmonary disease are associated with frequent use of smoked marijuana, (The "smoking" straw man fallacy again. Nowhere near a reason to incarcerate people -- i.e. the whole point of the initiaves -- but the little detail of "prison" `just accidently happened' to have slipped the good doctor's mind once again.)as are reduced sperm mobility and testosterone levels in males. Yes, and we can see the catastrophic effects that has had on cultures like we find in India, where cannabis has been eaten and smoked for centuries. Indeed, India is having problems maintaining sufficient population growth in is certainly in danger of cannabis-induced depopulation. This could be a real danger with using marijuana for chemo patients, and the good doctor is rightly concerned (so concerned he wanted to lock up adults). Thank you doctor: such concern for people is truly touching.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by observer on May 04, 2000 at 15:16:54 PT
The Pro-Prison Pitch, continued
Decreased immune system response, which is likely to increase vulnerability to infection and tumors, is also associated with frequent use. "Associated" only in the sense that prohibitionists keep repeating this myth.4. Marijuana suppresses the immune systemLike the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied. MARIJUANA MYTHShttp://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html MARIJUANA IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONINGIt has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s, following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS. THE FACTS The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of "transformation" in those taken from marijuana smokers. 26 However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have failed to confirm this original study. 27 In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators. 28 Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day - a dose approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive effect in humans. 29 There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuanausers and matched controls. 30 Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. 31 In fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC) for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any immunopathology due to THC. 32 Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed, the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissueshould encourage aggressive exploration of THC's potential use as an immune-system stimulant. 33 MARIJUANA IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONING http://www.pdxnorml.org/Exposing_05_1095.html Even a slight decrease in immune response can have a major public health ramifications. (Notice the good doctor is mum on the effect of jail on people. Why is that do you suppose?)Irrespective of such risks and the fact that the demonstrated beneficial components in marijuana are already available in the approved prescription drug Dronabinol/Which is about $30 a dose. At this price, it is still cheaper, dose-for-dose to buy black-market cannabis and eat it! Follow the money my friends. Here is one reason that big pharmacuetical companies lobby so hard against returning to adult Americans their traditional right to grow and use this traditional plant remedy. ballot initiatives have proceeded -- with tumultuous consequences.Sure: it means that government loses power to incarcerate a few people. A horrible, nasty fate for the government bureaucrat that loses the power to incarcerate. Shudders!All such initiatives create a conflict between state and federal drug laws. Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html If government bureaucrats and police would obey their oaths to the consititution, there would be no conflict at all. And most marijuana cases are prosecited at the state level, not federal so any relief for medical cannabis users helps.But McDonough, typical of prohibitionists, is in "any excuse will do" mode: any excuse will do to keep locking up adults who use marijuana.California's problematic experience is instructive: The "buyers' clubs" for marijuana became notorious for facetious interpretations of the definitions of "prescription," "doctor's recommendation," and "medical." Another classic prohibitionist trick: the effects of prohibitionist laws (the one forbidding MDs to "prescribe" cannabis, since 1937) are used as "reasons" to eliminate freedoms (as always, any excuse will do).One "patient" obtained a prescription for marijuana to treat hot flashes. Another, arrested for possession, claimed he was medically entitled to his stash to treat a condition exacerbated by an ingrown toenail. Certainly some well-documented anecdotes from McDonough here, true enough. So the fact that people exist who have broken the Prop 215 guidelines is a reason to scrap the protections offered? A reason to arrest people? (McDonough carefully avoids mentioning prison. But we know what he really means.)Undercover police in several buyers clubs reported flagrant sales to minors. Eventually, 10 of the 13 clubs in California were closed.Due to federal pressure and police who won't enforce laws (unless the laws are giving the police more power to destroy lives that is). James McDonough is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control.A free, independent press might point out that McDonough is the epitome of one who has a vested interest in expanding the war on Americans who use some drugs. One can only wonder if the Washington Times is gettng financial kickbacks from the government for this article, as it has for other articles.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by nl5x on May 04, 2000 at 13:25:57 PT
eat it
eat it.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment
Name: Optional Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL:
Link Title: